Abstract
Response inhibition is an important executive process studied by clinical and experimental psychologists, neurophysiologists and cognitive neuroscientists alike. Stop-signal paradigms are popular because they are grounded in a theory that provides methods to estimate the latency of an unobservable process: the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT). Critically, SSRT estimates can be biased by skew of the response time distribution and gradual slowing over the course of the experiment. Here, we present a series of experiments that directly compare three common stop-signal paradigms that differ in the distribution of response times. The results show that the widely used choice response (CR) and simple response (SR) time versions of the stop-signal paradigm are particularly susceptible to skew of the response time distribution and response slowing, and that using the anticipated response (AR) paradigm based on the Slater-Hammel task offers a viable alternative to obtain more reliable SSRT estimates.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
